What are caucuses and why is the first one in Iowa so important?

Published

2 years ago

January 14, 2024

admin

It might be nine months away – but the race to the US presidential election has well and truly begun.

The first step in deciding which candidate will get their party’s nomination begins in Iowa on Monday evening.

Since 1972, the midwestern state has been the first to hold its caucus – which has routinely acted as a litmus test for how candidates will fare later along the campaign trail.

But with the Democrats not voting at their Iowa event this year – and Donald Trump’s multiple brushes with the law, this year’s proceedings may not be straightforward.

Here we look at what happens in Iowa, what a caucus is, and whether the winners will be the ones to watch.

What is a caucus – and how does it work?

The road to a US presidential election is long, beginning almost exactly a year before the incumbent is inaugurated with a star-studded ceremony at the White House.

It begins with primaries and caucuses – two ways Democrats and Republicans begin the process of nominating a candidate.

The vast majority of states hold primaries, but Iowa and some other, traditionally Republican states opt for caucuses instead.

While primaries are like mini-elections, whereby party members can cast their vote at any point throughout the day, or sometimes by post, caucuses must be attended in person.

Primaries are run by the state whereas caucuses are organised by the parties themselves.

Caucuses take place at precinct, district, and state level in places such as schools, churches, and community centres.

Those who attend listen to speeches made on behalf of each potential candidate by their campaign representatives. Caucus-goers then vote for their preferred candidate and these are tallied in a matter of hours.

Primaries and caucuses can be open or closed, with the former allowing anyone to take part and the latter restricted to party-registered voters.

The outcome of the caucus or primary determines how many delegates each candidate gets to represent them at the party’s national convention in the summer.

At the convention, the candidate with the most delegates becomes the presidential nominee, but if there is no clear winner at primary or caucus level, the delegates vote again at the convention.

Why does Iowa go first?

Iowa has long been a traditionally Republican state, with its current governor, House representatives and senators all belonging to the GOP.

But from the 1950s, Democrats have had more of a presence there.

With the increasing influence of trade unions came calls for the state’s cities to get better political representation, more in line with rural areas.

Then after the Democratic National Convention of 1968, where protests over the Vietnam War resulted in a protester’s death and hundreds of injuries, Democrats in Iowa demanded reform of the state caucus system – to move power away from party bosses and more into the hands of grassroots activists.

This saw separate conventions created at state and district level, which elongated the caucus process and meant the whole thing had to start earlier.

As such, since 1972 Iowa has been what is commonly referred to as “first in the nation”.

Why has it become so important?

Iowa’s “first in the nation” status means it often acts as an initial performance indicator for nominee candidates.

“The results in Iowa sends a signal to the rest of the country on the tenor of each of the candidates and whether they really will have the chance of proceeding on,” Jim McCormick, emeritus professor of American politics and US foreign policy at Iowa State University, tells Sky News.

This was capitalised on in its first year, when South Dakota’s senator George McGovern realised Iowa would be first and made a particular effort there – with him going on to win the nomination for the Democrats.

Ahead of the next election in 1976, Jimmy Carter’s campaign team honed in on Iowa, which gained nationwide media coverage and ultimately helped propel him to the White House.

From then on, every US president since Carter, aside from Bill Clinton in 1992 and Joe Biden in 2020, has finished within the top three of the Iowa caucus.

Barack Obama often credits his win there with his election to the presidency in 2008.

But historically, coming first in the caucus has not guaranteed winning the party nomination, particularly among Republicans.

As such, there have only been three times when the winner of the Iowa caucus has gone on to win the Republican nomination.

Iowa has proportionately more white and elderly people than many other states, so despite efforts made by campaign teams, the result there can still turn out to be misleading.

Poor weather in January and the timing of the event can also lead to low turnout, with only 30% of registered Republicans taking part in 2016, the last time the race was competitive.

But Prof McCormick argues: “International observers have a tendency to look to New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles to see what the US is all about.

“But Iowa is so-called ‘flyover country’, which is more reflective of the values of middle America. So even with its demography and relatively small ethnic minorities, the message that comes out of Iowa is consequential.”

To that effect, the Iowa caucus has consistently succeeded in getting weaker candidates who perform badly to pull out of the overall race.

What’s happening this year?

Although both parties are holding their Iowa caucuses on Monday, only the Republican one is important this year.

In 2020, the Iowa Democratic caucus was plagued with technical issues, mainly around a new app, and failed to produce a clear winner.

The result had to be recanvassed and the series of blunders resulted in the resignation of state party chairman Troy Price.

Consequently, this year’s Democratic caucus will not include a nominee ballot. This will happen via a postal vote beginning on 12 January and ending on 5 March instead.

Joe Biden is largely seen as uncontested, being so far ahead of the other major candidates, Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson, in the polls.

But Republicans will be voting on their preferred candidate at 7pm, with only registered party members and those aged 18 or over come election day allowed to take part at one of 1,700 local precincts.

As has been the case since the 1980s, the ballot will be carried out in secret.

Conditions are expected to be -19C (-2F) in the state on Monday, likely preventing many of its 600,000 registered Republicans from getting to the event, particularly those in rural areas.

Who’s in the running and what about Trump?

Despite multiple ongoing legal fights, Donald Trump is still dominating the polls.

While Ron DeSantis was long tipped to be his main competitor, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley has now surpassed the Florida governor in polling.

According to Prof McCormick, Mr Trump’s performance in Iowa is likely to determine whether either of the other two stand a chance of beating him to the nomination stage.

“Given that Trump has a very large lead, this is going to be an important signal to other states about whether there really is a chance of forestalling his getting the nomination,” he says.

While Ms Haley appears to have outperformed Mr DeSantis in the Iowa debates, her success in the caucus will depend on how well-organised her campaign team has been across the state, he adds.

“She’s been very well organised in New Hampshire (the next primary after Iowa), but in Iowa she’s been concentrating on people in the suburbs, because they are the people who will be able to get to the caucuses.

“DeSantis keeps saying he’s visited all 99 counties in Iowa – so he’s booking everything on it.

“But a lot of his support will come from rural counties, evangelical Christians, and older voters, who may not be able to get to the caucus sites in -26C.”

Mr DeSantis has also suffered from high staff turnover in his campaign team, weaker debate performances than Ms Haley, and having some views that are similar to Mr Trump’s, Prof McCormick adds.

These factors combined mean there is a greater risk of a poor result and him being forced to bow out.

Mr Trump, by contrast, skipped the debates, and took part in a Fox News town hall event instead.

As well as the economy, issues caucus-goers will be focused on include state laws recently passed on transgender and abortion rights, along with agricultural exports.

So is this year’s Iowa caucus really ‘one to watch’?

The short answer is yes.

Prof McCormick stresses: “If Trump comes out with a very large lead in Iowa, that should be taken as a very good indicator he’ll get the nomination.

“But if Trump doesn’t get at least 50% of the vote – and either Haley or DeSantis come up close, even within a 10-point margin, that really raises a question about his ‘slam dunk’ ability to dominate the process – and we could be looking at a different story.”

But beyond the nomination, Trump’s future is still uncertain, he adds.

“The Biden campaign has indicated they’ll be focused on Trump’s persona rather than a lot of the national issues. So he’ll be handicapped even if he gets the nomination.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

While efforts by states such as Georgia and Maine to bar him from running are considered likely to be struck out by the Supreme Court, it is still unclear whether the lawsuits against him would prevent him from returning to the White House.

But if an Iowa win does see him secure the nomination, his supporter base is still very large, which means Monday’s caucus could end up having consequences far beyond the US.

Prof McCormick says: “Every time he’s been indicted, his popularity has gone up.

“So if Trump succeeds in getting voter turnout in Iowa that suggests we could see a foreign policy at odds with what Biden has been pursuing, which, given his attitudes towards NATO, Ukraine, and Russia, would be a huge concern for a lot of people.”

US

Donald Trump says he feels ‘badly’ for royals after Andrew stripped of titles over Epstein row

Published

15 hours ago

November 3, 2025

admin

Donald Trump says he feels 'badly' for royals after Andrew stripped of titles over Epstein row

Donald Trump has said he feels “badly” for the Royal Family after Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was stripped of his titles – as it emerged he could also be stripped of his honorary rank of vice admiral.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One, the US president was asked about his thoughts on the King’s decision to strip his brother of his peerages in the wake of further disclosures about his relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

“It’s a terrible thing that’s happened to the family,” Mr Trump said. “That’s been a tragic situation. It’s too bad. I feel badly for the family.”

The King’s brother was stripped of his prince and Duke of York titles by the monarch over his links to Epstein on Thursday.

He lost his last remaining royal titles and privileges following the posthumous publication of a memoir by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims.

She had accused Andrew of sexual assault and sued him in August 2021. The case was settled outside court for a sum believed to have been around £12m.

Andrew has denied allegations of sexual assault made by Ms Giuffre, and has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.

Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, claimed that – as a teenager – she had sex with Andrew on three occasions after being trafficked by billionaire paedophile Epstein and his ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

Andrew has always denied the allegations.

Ms Giuffre’s family hailed the King’s decision to remove Andrew’s titles, saying: “An ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.”

Mr Trump has also come under pressure over his ties to Epstein. After the financier’s death in 2019, the US president downplayed their relationship and said he had “no idea” about Epstein’s crimes.

Andrew could lose vice admiral rank – Healey

It comes after Defence Secretary John Healey told Sky’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips that the former prince could be stripped of his honorary rank of vice admiral

Andrew was made a vice admiral on his 55th birthday in 2015 and retained the rank even after giving up his other military positions in 2022.

He had a career spanning more than 20 years in the Royal Navy, and served in the Falklands War.

Mr Healey told Sky News: “We’ve seen Andrew surrender the military positions that he’s had and we’re looking now at the one remaining position he has, which is the honorary vice admiral position and, we’ve got a process underway for that.”

Asked what that process is, he said: “We’re being guided by the King and we’re now looking to remove.”

Mr Healey was also asked if the government would legislate to remove Andrew from the line of succession.

He said that is a “matter for the King” but his personal view is “it’s neither here nor there” as Andrew has lost all other of his royal titles.

Meanwhile, Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative Party chairman, told Trevor Phillips: “Andrew’s 8th in line to succession of the monarchy.

“Parliament’s got many better things to do than to legislate for something that will never happen.”

Now simply known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor after losing his titles, he will move from Royal Lodge to the Sandringham estate in Norfolk – with his future accommodation to be privately funded by the monarch.

Pressure is now building on Andrew to give evidence before a powerful US Congressional committee.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating the Epstein affair, and several of its members have invited Andrew to come and give evidence, presenting it as an opportunity to clear his name.

Royal biographer Andrew Morton said he believes there “are more revelations to come” about Epstein from the committee.

He told Sky News: “Given the fact that Andrew hasn’t been fully comprehensive in his admissions and emails have emerged which go further than his Newsnight interview, I think that will be the fear inside the palace.”

In a 2019 interview with Newsnight, Andrew claimed that he cut off contact with Epstein in 2010 following his release from jail for prostituting minors.

However, emails released since suggest they stayed in touch for longer.

US

UK must increase North Sea drilling to boost economy, says US ambassador

Published

15 hours ago

November 3, 2025

admin

UK must increase North Sea drilling to boost economy, says US ambassador

The US ambassador to the UK has said Britain should carry out “more drilling and more production” in the North Sea.

In his first broadcast interview in the job, Warren Stephens urged the UK to make the most of its own oil and gas reserves to cut energy costs and boost the economy.

“Electricity costs are four times ours in the UK, versus the US,” he told Mornings with Ridge and Frost.

“I want the UK economy to be as strong as it possibly can be, so the UK can be the best ally to the US that it possibly can be.

“Having a growing economy is essential to that – and the electricity costs make it very difficult.”

Mr Stephens told Wilfred Frost he hoped Britain would “examine the policies in the North Sea and frankly, make some changes to it that allows for more drilling and more production”.

“You’re using oil and gas, but you’re importing it. Why not use your own?” he asked.

The ambassador said he had held meetings with Sir Keir Starmer on the energy issue while President Donald Trump was in the room, and that the prime minister was “absolutely” listening to the US view.

“I think there are members of the government that are listening,” Mr Stephens told Sky News. “There is a little bit of movement to make changes on the policy and I’ll hope that will continue.”

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has said the UK should be prioritising net zero by 2030 to limit climate change, rather than issuing new oil and gas drilling licences.

However, the ambassador said it would take “all energy for all countries to compete” in the future, given the huge power demands of data centres and AI.

“I don’t think Ed Miliband is necessarily wrong,” said Mr Stephens. “But I think it’s an incorrect policy to ignore your fossil fuel reserves, both in the North Sea and onshore.”

The ambassador hosted President Trump on the first night of his second UK state visit in September – a trip that was seen as a success by both sides.

Mr Stephens said President Trump and Sir Keir had a “great relationship” and pointed to the historic ties between Britain and the US as a major factor in June’s trade deal and the favourable tariff rate on the UK.

“The president really loves this country,” the ambassador told Sky News.

“I don’t think it’s coincidental that the tariff rates on the UK are generally a third, or at worst half, of what a lot of other countries are facing.

“I think the prime minister and his team did a great job of positioning the United Kingdom to be the first trade deal, but also the best one that’s been struck.”

Mr Stephens – who began his job in London in May – also touched on the Ukraine war and said President Trump’s patience with Russia was “wearing thin”.

The Alaska summit between Mr Trump and Vladimir Putin failed to produce a breakthrough, and the US leader has admitted the Russian president may be “playing” him so he can continue the fighting.

The ambassador told Sky News he had always favoured a tough stance on Russia and was “delighted” when Mr Trump sanctioned Russia’s two biggest oil firms a few weeks ago.

However, he emphasised the president’s call that other countries must stop buying Russian energy to really tighten the screw.

‘The incorrect policy’ – That’s Trumpian diplomacy for you

“You’re using oil and gas, but you’re importing it. Why not use your own?”

It’s a reasonable question for President Trump’s top representative here in the UK – ambassador Warren Stephens – to ask, particularly given that our exclusive interview was taking place in the UK’s oil capital, Aberdeen.

The ambassador told me that he and President Trump have repeatedly lobbied Prime Minister Starmer on the topic, and somewhat strikingly said the PM was “absolutely listening”, adding: “I think there are certainly members of the government that are listening. And there is a little bit of movement to make some changes to the policy.”

Well, one member of the government who is seemingly not listening, and happens to be spending most of this week at the UN Climate Change Conference in Brazil, is Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

“It’s going to take all energy for all countries to compete in the 21st century for AI and data centres,” the ambassador told me. “And so, I don’t think Ed Miliband is necessarily wrong, but I think it’s an incorrect policy to ignore your fossil fuel reserves, both in the North Sea and onshore.”

Not wrong, but the incorrect policy. That’s Trumpian diplomacy for you.

His comments on Russia, China and free speech were also fascinating. On the latter, he said that in the US someone might get “cancelled for saying something, but they’re not going to get arrested.”

“The president, has been, I would say, careful in ramping up pressure on Russia. But I think his patience is wearing out,” said Mr Stephens.

“One of the problems is a lot of European countries still depend on Russian gas,” he added.

“We’re mindful of that. We understand that, but until we can really cut off their ability to sell oil and gas around the world, they’re going to have money and Putin seems intent on continuing the war.”

The ambassador also struck a cautious but hopeful tone on future US and UK relations with China.

It comes after President Trump said his meeting this week with President Xi was a “12/10”, raising hopes the trade war between the superpowers could be simmering down.

China’s huge economy is too big to ignore – but it remains a major spy threat; the head of MI5 warned last month of an increase in “state threat activity” from Beijing (as well as Russia and Iran).

Mr Stephens praised the country’s economy and said it would be “terrific” if China could one day be considered a partner.

But he warned “impatient” China is ruthlessly focused on itself only, and would like to see the US and the West weakened.

“There’s certainly things we want to be able to do with China,” added the ambassador.

“And I know the UK wants to do things with China. The United States does, too – and we should. But I think we always need to keep in the back of our mind that China does not have our interests at heart.”

:: Watch Mornings with Ridge and Frost on weekdays Monday to Thursday, from 7am to 10am on Sky News

US

‘We will treat them EXACTLY how we treated al Qaeda’ – US carries out another lethal strike in Caribbean

Published

1 day ago

November 2, 2025

admin

'We will treat them EXACTLY how we treated al Qaeda' - US carries out another lethal strike in Caribbean

The US military has carried out a fresh strike on what it claims are drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea – as tensions with Venezuela remain high.

Secretary for War Pete Hegseth announced the strike on Saturday, claiming the vessel was operated by a US-designated terrorist organisation, but did not name which group was targeted.

He said three people were killed.

“This vessel – like EVERY OTHER – was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” he said.

It’s at least the 15th strike by the US in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific since early September – operations that Venezuela has said amount to murder and whose legal justification is unclear.

At least 64 people have now been killed in the strikes.

The rhetoric coming out of the White House, coupled with the presence of American military ships in the region, has raised questions about a possible armed conflict between the US and Venezuela.

American politicians have repeatedly demanded more information from the Trump administration about the legal basis for the strikes, as well as more details about the cartels they have allegedly targeted.

“These narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home – and they will not succeed,” Mr Hegseth said on Saturday.

“The Department will treat them EXACTLY how we treated Al-Qaeda. We will continue to track them, map them, hunt them, and kill them.”

President Donald Trump has accused Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro of leading an organised crime gang – without providing evidence – and declined to answer when questioned if the CIA has the authority to assassinate him.

In return, the Venezuelan leader has accused Mr Trump of seeking regime change and of “fabricating a new eternal war” against his country, as he appealed to the American people for peace.

A number of US navy vessels are in the region and the USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier – the largest warship in the world – is also moving closer to Venezuela as speculation persists about possible further military action.